Home Outreach Leaders OPINION: Navigating the Moral Complexity of a Post Roe World

OPINION: Navigating the Moral Complexity of a Post Roe World

On January 6, 2021, and in the days leading up to it, the actions of “the most pro-life president in history” directly led to the death of five people and injury to hundreds more. Had not heroic men and women stood in the gap, more could have been killed, and the events of the day could have created a constitutional crisis the likes of which the nation has never seen.

Further, this is only one aspect of Trump’s personal conduct and presidency that Christians should find objectionable.

Certainly, without Trump’s conservative justice appointments, Roe would likely still be the law of the land. Nevertheless, thoughtful Christians are faced with the question of whether the ends have justified the means.

For some, they answer that question in the affirmative, basing their continued support for Trump on a machiavellian belief that we do not need a good man to bring about societal good; we simply need a strong man. We need a winner. In this mindset, virtue is of little importance if the virtuous do not possess power.

This is a line of reasoning that I find to be deeply incongruent with authentic biblical Christianity. The Christian faith, at its heart, is highly impractical. Through the centuries, the unwillingness of Christians to compromise on their convictions has led to suffering, persecution, marginalization, and death. And yet God has moved in miraculous ways to bring about redemption in the lives of individuals as well as societal groups at large.

What’s done is done. But now Christians must consider how willing they are to endorse the litany of evils that led to one monumental good.

God works through all things. But that does not mean that he endorses all things or makes excuses for them.

The Moral Complexity of Pro-Life Legislation

Leading up to the overturn of Roe, a number of state legislators fought to pass bills that would ban abortion immediately following the ruling. On the face of it, that seems like a good thing—the next logical step in advocacy for the unborn.

Nevertheless, what some of those bills have contained has been quite troubling.

For example, a failed bill in Louisiana sought to enact criminal penalties on women who seek or obtain an abortion, making them subject to murder charges. Thankfully the legislation was tabled in favor of a bill that would eliminate such penalties. But a growing contingency of the anti-abortion movement, including a significant number of evangelicals, is in favor of similar legislation, even advocating for women who obtain an abortion to receive the death penalty.

I believe that legal consequences are a necessary part of legislation that limits access to abortion. However, those legal consequences should fall on medical professionals who perform abortions, not the women—many of whom are socially disenfranchised and driven by desperation—who have sought them.